The Kerala High Court has held that in a claim under Section 166 of the M.V Act, not only the proof of the negligence on the part of the driver or rider, but proof that the person alleged to have sustained injuries in a motor accident died in consequence of the accidental injuries is also required.
The single-judge bench of Justice A. Badharudeen while adjudicating upon an appeal by Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act mentioned the twin conditions that needed to be satisfied.
Brief Facts of the Case
Husband and the two sons of deceased filed the present petition claiming that she scummbed to death due to injury suffered in a motor accident which was a result of the negligence on part of the rider of the motorcycle.
The respondent denied the claims and rather contended that Police didn't register any case at the first instance and later, crime was registered on the basis of a private complaint lodged before the Magistrate Court, after a period of 3½ months.
It was the submitted that death of `Lalam' (deceased) was not due to motor accident or due to the resultant cause of injuries sustained. The death was natural one and there was no postmortem certificate or inquest, to hold otherwise. It was contended further that the above said Lalam underwent valve surgery about 10 years back at Sree Chitra Thirunal Hospital and she died in consequence of the said trauma.
The Tribunal found negligence against the 2nd respondent and granted compensation.
In the present appeal, the Counsel for the insurer argued that no evidence adduced before the Tribunal to find negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent. It was submitted that consequent on the death of `Lalam', no inquest, no postmortem certificate etc. were prepared to prove prima facie that the death of `Lalam' was sequel to the accident or the same as an unnatural death. However, after 3 ½ months, crimes was registered alleging commission of offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of I.P.C. pursuant to a private complaint lodged before the Magistrate Court.
He further submitted that in a detailed investigation, it was found that the entire allegations led to registration of the crime investigated as false.
High Court's Observation
As per the Court, the prime question arose for consideration was as to whether, what are the conditions to be established to claim compensation in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act when the petitioners allege negligence on the part of the driver/rider of the vehicle and death as its consequence?
Noting that twin conditions must be satisfied in this regard; first one is proof of negligence on the part of the rider or driver of the vehicle alleged to be involved in the accident and the second one is proof of death of person in consequence of accidental injuries.
After analysing the facts, the Court noted that in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, proof of negligence is mandatory to canvass compensation from the tortfeasers and the indemnifier. Apart from that, in cases of death there should be proof to hold that the death of the person involved in the accident is the direct consequence of the accidental injuries, the Court stated.
In view of the above, the Court said that it is the burden of the petitioners to adduce evidence to satisfy the allegation of negligence attributed against the driver or rider of the vehicle involved in the accident and to prove that the person died due to accidental injuries, since grant of compensation therein is based on the principle of `fault' liability.
It further noted that it is the settled law that police charge/final report attributing negligence against the tortfeaser/driver/rider can be relied on to find negligence, if the contrary is not established otherwise, by means of positive evidence.
"Here, the final report is totally against the contention raised by the petitioners in the matter of negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent. Thus the final report is against the contention raised by the petitioners. There is no rigid rule that police charge/final report is the last word to find negligence on the part of the driver/rider. No doubt, independent substantive evidence, namely, the evidence of eye witnesses to the accident, if adduced, the said substantive evidence, if reliable, will supersede the police charge/final report. Indubitably, in the absence of such substantive evidence, negligence could not be found against the driver/rider."
Reflecting on what is the evidence available in this case to find negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent/the rider of the motorcycle?, the Court stated that in the case on hand, instead of examining the persons, if any, who witnessed the occurrence, the husband of the petitioner, got examined. His evidence is nothing but `hearsay' as he admittedly is not an eye witness to the accident.
Further, the Court found no cogent evidence in this case even to hold that `Lalam' died in consequence of the injuries sustained in a motor accident.
It was thus concluded that both the conditions remained unsatisfied in the present case, therefore the appeal of the insurer was allowed.
CASE TITLE: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. vs V. BABU
CASE DETAILS: MACA NO. 350 OF 2012
CORAM: Justice A. Badharudeen
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
